Tall runners vs. short runners, in marathons
Existential Angst
For a given bodyweight, who has the advantage?
Is it more leg length?
Has an optimal height/wt been determined?
Marathon winners seem to be "average" height, more or less.
Frank Shorter was, iirc, sorta short.
Sprinters seem to tall, 6' - 6'2" or so. Bolt is 6' 5".
--
EA
Paul Rudin
Who knows for sure - it seems most elite marathon runners tend to be on
the short side. By Paula is 5'8" - which is taller than average for a
woman and she is (was) way faster than anyone else. She has a pretty low
BMI tho' - 18.0.
John Hurley
# For a given bodyweight, who has the advantage?
The ones on growth hormone probably have an advantage ...
At 6'2 my current weight is 165 pounds.
I know I would have an advantage racing against someone my age that is
5'6 and also weighs 165 pounds.
Unfortunately the 5'6 guys tend to be racing at 150 instead of 165 ...
dang those cheaters!
Tony S.
news:4cf9ba63$0$26711$607e...@cv.net...
The best runner in the world IMO, Bekele, is 5'4" and is about 120.
Equal or next best would be Geb: about 5'5" and 123, who of course ran
2:03:59. So, I'd say, average those two and you have a pretty clear idea
of optimal height and weight for marathoners. Though Kenny B hasn't run
a marathon yet to my knowledge, if healthy he clearly has the engine to
challenge and probably surpass Geb's times.
-Tony
Don Kirkman
wrote:
>"Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:4cf9ba63$0$26711$607e...@cv.net...
>> Awl --
>>
>> For a given bodyweight, who has the advantage?
>> Is it more leg length?
A sample of two. My favorite running partner when I was active was
close to a foot shorter than me, but when we were running together our
leg turnover was nearly always at the same rate. Logic would have
made me think she should have been at a higher rate, but in fact
turnover and stride length were essentially equal.
>> Has an optimal height/wt been determined?
>>
>> Marathon winners seem to be "average" height, more or less.
>> Frank Shorter was, iirc, sorta short.
>>
>> Sprinters seem to tall, 6' - 6'2" or so. Bolt is 6' 5".
>> --
>> EA
>
>The best runner in the world IMO, Bekele, is 5'4" and is about 120.
>Equal or next best would be Geb: about 5'5" and 123, who of course ran
>2:03:59. So, I'd say, average those two and you have a pretty clear idea
>of optimal height and weight for marathoners. Though Kenny B hasn't run
>a marathon yet to my knowledge, if healthy he clearly has the engine to
>challenge and probably surpass Geb's times.
Do we need to allow for two or more factors that might make a
difference? First, lifestyle difference (e.g., Kenyans run, Americans
ride) may be part of the equation. Second, average stature varies by
culture and genetic background; you may find taller people in better
developed countries and shorter people in developing countries, which
may also relate to who runs and who rides. ISTM some of that presumed
concentration of shorter people who are better marathoners may be
explained by those kinds of considerations.
Also, are the tall people (i.e., people in the Americans and Europe,
for example) also more plentiful in cultures where sprinting is a
bigger slice of the running pie than in Kenya, for instance?
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Paul Rudin
> Do we need to allow for two or more factors that might make a
> difference? First, lifestyle difference (e.g., Kenyans run, Americans
> ride) may be part of the equation. Second, average stature varies by
> culture and genetic background; you may find taller people in better
> developed countries and shorter people in developing countries, which
> may also relate to who runs and who rides. ISTM some of that presumed
> concentration of shorter people who are better marathoners may be
> explained by those kinds of considerations.
That's certainly a possibility. It may be the Kenyans and Ethiopians are
domininating (mens) distance running for completely different reasons,
but it just so happens that they tend to be smaller than (for example)
Leftpondians.
It's probably more complicated than just looking at average heights for
a country... countries contain people from different ethnic groups. Your
average white american man (around 5'10") is taller than your average
hispanic american man (5'7"), for example. Kenya has the Maasai who are
very tall (6'0")... but not representative of the population as a whole.
armur...@yahoo.com
Okay kinda unrelated but I heard that shorter people can do better
than tall in marathons because they burn less calories per mile and
weigh less. I think this is quite inaccurate because first off, taller
people can hold MORE calories than the average person because our
muscles are longer. Also, for the weight thing it doesn't make sense
because tall people can weigh just as little as a short person and can
thus take longer strides and have quicker turnover, leading to good
efficency. Does anyone else agree with me?
pithydoug
If I'm 7 foot tall I will really be fast? The amount of glycogen and
it's expenditure has a hell of lot more to do with training and pace
not longer muscles. We have had some tall runners do well at the
marathon but if you look at most of winners, they are short runts.
Also, for the weight thing it doesn't make sense
> because tall people can weigh just as little as a short person and can
> thus take longer strides and have quicker turnover, leading to good
> efficency.
Longer legs will probably have longer strides. Are you suggesting they
will turn them over quicker and run faster just because they weigh
the same? Don't buy this either.
Have you been to the finish line of a major $$$marathon$$$?
< Does anyone else agree with me?
I don't.
-D
Paul Rudin
> Okay kinda unrelated but I heard that shorter people can do better
> than tall in marathons because they burn less calories per mile and
> weigh less. I think this is quite inaccurate because first off, taller
> people can hold MORE calories than the average person because our
> muscles are longer. Also, for the weight thing it doesn't make sense
> because tall people can weigh just as little as a short person and can
> thus take longer strides and have quicker turnover, leading to good
> efficency. Does anyone else agree with me?
As far as results go we can just look to see who does well. The very
best distance runners tend to be relatively small. Now I haven't seen a
proper study that carefully analyzes results and tries to correlate with
height, but it certainly looks that way. Compare the heights of the guys
lining up at the olympic marathon with those at the olympic 100m final.
Of course if you're bigger you have greater calorie storage capability,
but you also have greater energy requirements at a given speed and it's
harder to keep cool.
John Hurley
# We have had some tall runners do well at the marathon but if you
look at most of winners, they are short runts.
One could easily argue that many of the taller athletes have some
other choices for making money in other sports that many of the
shorter athletes might not be able to take advantage of.
Not long ago some people thought that sprinters at elite levels should
not be too tall. Guess that idea has fallen apart.
Does it matter? Is anyone going to train one way or another ( running
related training ) based on how tall they are or are not?
pithydoug
> Doug:
>
> # We have had some tall runners do well at the marathon but if you
> look at most of winners, they are short runts.
>
> One could easily argue that many of the taller athletes have some
> other choices for making money in other sports that many of the
> shorter athletes might not be able to take advantage of.
Without a doubt our running talent has and will continue to be watered
down. The good news, the number of people running is nicely growing.
From a quality of runner, i.e. those looking to make a living - it
ain't happening. As for the filter where one decides what sport to
set their sites, I find height as viable as hair color and shoe
size.
> Not long ago some people thought that sprinters at elite levels should
> not be too tall. Guess that idea has fallen apart.
Who are the 'some people?" Sprinters were always those that could
run the fastest. The fact that some are quite tall today, doesn't
mean they they weren't allowed on the ride because because they were
to tall. You find a tall fast kid today and every football coach
will be recruiting him.
> Does it matter? Is anyone going to train one way or another ( running
> related training ) based on how tall they are or are not?
Not one lick of difference. We take what characteristics we have and
try to do the best we can. The only time anyone cares about height is
at my yearly physical and that to measure how much I have shrunk.
Yup, I'm and inch shorter. maybe when I'm 96 I'll be 5" 2' and take
up marathons again and kick some ass. ;)
OTOH, at least in the last 10-20 years the majority of marathon
winners are short and slight of frame. Is that because that body
style is the best or because the third world countries use running as
stepping stone to climb the financial ladder?
-D
John Hurley
# As far as results go we can just look to see who does well. The very
best distance runners tend to be relatively small.
Again looking at results only is valid only if one argues that the
talent base of the short/small runners matches against the talent base
of the taller/slightly larger runners.
If one postulates that many of the top elite athletes ( only those
kind can win major marathons obviously ) who are tall have more
choices outside of running to make money that changes the factors in
how valid a sample of small versus tall is competing at the top elite
levels.
Marissa
'Paul Rudin[_2_ Wrote:
> ;624126']armur...@yahoo.com writes:
>
> -
> Okay kinda unrelated but I heard that shorter people can do better
> than tall in marathons because they burn less calories per mile and
> weigh less. I think this is quite inaccurate because first off, taller
> people can hold MORE calories than the average person because our
> muscles are longer. Also, for the weight thing it doesn't make sense
> because tall people can weigh just as little as a short person and can
> thus take longer strides and have quicker turnover, leading to good
>
> As far as results go we can just look to see who does well. The very
> best distance runners tend to be relatively small. Now I haven't seen a
> proper study that carefully analyzes results and tries to correlate
> with
> height, but it certainly looks that way. Compare the heights of the
> guys
> lining up at the olympic marathon with those at the olympic 100m final.
>
> Of course if you're bigger you have greater calorie storage capability,
> but you also have greater energy requirements at a given speed and it's
> harder to keep cool.
I'm with you on the part about smaller runners needing less calories.
Their strength to weight ratio may be better allowing them to use less
energy.
--
Marissa
Rene Ghosh
Perhaps tall marathon runners need different training methods to train in dissipating eat and managing energy?
Erik P.
> While there certainly is a preponderance of shorter runners at the marathon, it is nevertheless possible to be tall and win. The example I submit to you is Robert Kipkoech Cheruiyot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kipkoech_Cheruiyot). He's 6-foot-3 and regularly wins marathons.
>
> Perhaps tall marathon runners need different training methods to train in dissipating eat and managing energy?
I have been reading through this thread and thought to add my 2
cents:
While you can still be tall and run fast marathons, it is certainly a
disadvantage if all other factors are equal. (we should really only
look at this in terms of physical height and build characteristics,
not lifestyle, background, financial status, etc. etc.) The training
is not different based on height, and the performance of sprinters has
NOTHING to do with marathon runners.
Leg length and stride length, contrary to what a lot of people seem to
think, is really negligible. Even if there is a bit of an advantage,
the disadvantages are greater.
Marathon running, more than any shorter distance, is all about
efficiency. Being taller means weighing more, and the heart and lung
capacity of a taller person is really not much more than a shorter
person, which hinders the taller person's energy to weight ratio. I
am 6'2" and 175lbs -- even if someone who is 5'6" and 145lbs is just
as "fit" as me, they carry much less weight and can go farther and
faster with that fitness. As other people have mentioned, even if i
slimmed down to like 160, the short guys could just be slimming down
to like 140 and still kick my butt!!
Its nice to know its at least possible to be incredible at my height,
though elites should really factor in unless you are a professional.
Guys like both Cheruiyot's and Zapotek (all over 6'1") are encouraging
for sure. I can't imagine someone like over 6'6" ever really
excelling at the Marathon from a professional level.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kipkoech_Cheruiyot ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kiprono_Cheruiyot,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Z%C3%A1potek)
Check out this calculator: http://academic.udayton.edu/paulvanderburgh/weight_age_grading_calculator.htm
its pretty cool. put in your weight, age, and marathon PR and it
shows what your PR "could" be at an optimal age and weight!
John Hurley
# I am 6'2" and 175lbs -- even if someone who is 5'6" and 145lbs is
just as "fit" as me, they carry much less weight and can go farther
and faster with that fitness.
Ummm ... well the skinny 6'2 runners who are really fast typically
might weigh down in the 140 range somewhere ... so I think you are
missing some logic here.
Erik P.
That is ultra skinny for a guy who is 6'2", and if the guy who is 5'6"
had that same BMI and fitness level, he would still be more efficient.
Plus, I would look anorexic below 150, and never really desire to be
that thin!
John Hurley
# That is ultra skinny for a guy who is 6'2", and if the guy who is
5'6" had that same BMI and fitness level, he would still be more
efficient.
For HS runners who are in the 6 foot range and above 140 pounds is
really not uncommon.
At 6'2 myself and pretty strong while 175 is a reasonable weight it is
not exactly close to being "leaned out" ... 165 for me is a lot
closer ... 160 ( which I am shooting for this year ... time will
tell ) would be even closer.
Everyone is different but unless you are bench pressing 300 pounds
most 6'2 runners who want to be fast are carrying a bunch of extra
weight at 175.
I'm just saying ...
pithydoug
I'm 6'1" and 175 - I guess I'm plump! ;) When I go below 170, and I
know how to do it slowly, my running starts to suck. Pass the IPA...
-D
Ken
<f48d95b4-4a9a-4a27...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
pithydoug <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> writes
himself, and doesn't own a weighing machine?
I did once get weighed for a race somewhere in the USA. I think I was
about 140 with my kit on.
--
Ken
John Hurley
# Am I the only one here that doesn't know their weight, has never
weighed himself, and doesn't own a weighing machine?
A "weighing machine" ... is that something like a "heighting
machine" ???
# I did once get weighed for a race somewhere in the USA. I think I
was about 140 with my kit on.
How tall are you? Most runners are going to run pretty well at the
140 pound range ... well assuming they have enough energy at that
weight to keep training.
With your "kit" on? With your "kilt" on?
Sorry you lost me there ... do you mean including running shoes and
clothes?
Ken
<98e25e9c-bfe3-48f0...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
John Hurley <hurle...@yahoo.com> writes
Maybe I'm only 5 ft 11 now.
If one is being weighed for a reason, such as for a race, it is normal
to be weighed with the appropriate clothes, in the case of a race, the
kit that one will wear on race day..
I have never run in a kilt, and they are too warm to be useful for
running, and don't of course, support the genitalia, unless one cheats
and wears something underneath.
--
Ken
John Hurley
# I was a shade under 6 ft, but I seem to be shrinking in my old age.
Maybe I'm only 5 ft 11 now.
So 5'11 and somewhere in the 140 pound range still ( probably )?
Nice racing weight and more power to you brother!
I think I would be reasonably fast in my old age if I was able to get
my weight anywhere close to down in that range. Hoping to see low
160's eventually late this summer/fall but time will tell.
John Hurley
# I'm 6'1" and 175 - I guess I'm plump! ;)
Do you listen to Shakira much ... "hips don't lie" ?
For us guys though usually the belly or underneath the chin is gut
check time. Not that the hips are inaccurate either ...
Ken
<4b15bd71-fb7b-4259...@17g2000prr.googlegroups.com>, John
Hurley <hurle...@yahoo.com> writes
itself.
None of us should ever try to wrench from the hand of the almighty, more
of the gift that he has already given us.
And by the way, being light weight makes one unattractive to women.
--
Ken
dizzy
>Ken
>
># I was a shade under 6 ft, but I seem to be shrinking in my old age.
>Maybe I'm only 5 ft 11 now.
>
>So 5'11 and somewhere in the 140 pound range still ( probably )?
That's my height and weight, too. Actually 136 naked.
>Nice racing weight and more power to you brother!
See?